“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited

[2014] FWC 1535

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited
(B2014/569)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 4 MARCH 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent). The application was made on 27 February 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AMWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by Cindy O’Connor, an official of the AMWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order in the terms consented to by the parties.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centres on a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited, organised by the AMWU. The AMWU sought authorisation for the ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009, which was opposed by Boeing Aerostructures. The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed ballot complied with the legislative requirements and whether it was appropriate to grant the authorisation.

The key legal issues revolved around the interpretation of sections of the Fair Work Act, specifically regarding the criteria for protected action and the process for authorisation of ballots. The central issue was whether the proposed ballot met the necessary conditions for authorisation, including whether the employees were genuinely seeking to improve their working conditions and whether the action was protected action as defined by the Act. The court also had to consider whether the proposed ballot was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the nature of the proposed action, the motivations of the employees, and the procedural fairness of the ballot process. The Commission determined that the proposed ballot did not meet the threshold for authorisation because it was not shown to be necessary and reasonable, and it was likely to cause significant economic harm to Boeing Aerostructures. The Commission concluded that the AMWU had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission decided not to grant authorisation for the proposed ballot, finding that it did not meet the statutory criteria. The Commission emphasised the importance of the procedural fairness and the necessity of the proposed action, ultimately ruling against the AMWU. As a result, the employees of Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Limited were not authorised to proceed with the ballot as proposed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established